trump vs hillary

[MadisonDan]

4chan. It's one of the most visited websites on earth, started by a 13 year old kid that's filled with the weirdest/smartest asperger types in the world.

They have that on the internet now?

kidding..... Never heard of it before... interesting.. the kid was 15 btw.

wasn't sure where you were coming from/going with that. I tend to be overly sensitive to things regarding kids/people on the spectrum...

Carry on... nothing more to see here.

 

[gtluke]

They have that on the internet now?

kidding..... Never heard of it before... interesting.. the kid was 15 btw.

wasn't sure where you were coming from/going with that. I tend to be overly sensitive to things regarding kids/people on the spectrum...

Carry on... nothing more to see here.

I spend most of my day with an asperger. My niece is one too. I guess now they are just calling it spectrum but you know what I mean.
They are the most useful people in the world if motivated. Supreme focus and brainpower if applied properly. But most often it's spent posting pictures of cats on 4chan.

 

[Supermoto]

let's bring up the gun rights stuff - because why not. its part of the debate

so obama was supposed to take away everyone's guns. that's how the pro-gun argument sold the anti-obama argument. did that actually happen anywhere? did guns get taken out of everyone's hands? nope.

why do gun rights activists jump on the belief that their guns will be taken away and actually believe it? it is never going to happen in our lifetime. it didn't and won't.

back to the candidates:

so trump is saying more guns makes people safer - yet he supports "stop and frisk" because it will stop gun violence, because it will take guns off the street. here's somewhat of a link - couldn't find actual quotes, but it summarizes pretty well: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/trum...eople-in-inner-cities-are-living-in-hell.html

someone please 'splain this... how can more guns make everyone safer, yet at the same time, he argues to have guns taken off the street? is it because "certain" people should have guns, and other "certain" people shouldn't? or am i reading too much into that, and he just doesn't know which is right, more guns, or less guns? and again, he is painting her as a person who is going to take everyone's guns away, which just isn't true.

and HRC - she is standing on the typical "common sense" gun control measures, like minimizing clip size, further background checks, etc. is that too much of an ask because one step toward further gun control means in five more minutes no one has guns anymore. or we can take the @Monkey Soup argument and say "wouldn't fix anything anyway, so why bother"?

sorry - just having fun Soup - I know you didn't say that... yet 😉 - i kid because i love.

Obama couldn't pass anti gun legislation due to congress. But thats not where it will come from. It will come from the SC when they are stacked with activist judges.

Guns have been taken away in the past. It happened here in NJ with the AWB. In MA, the AG just said all AR15 are illegal and you are a felon if you own one, even though they have been legal all along...but now she is interpreting the laws differently than the last 20 years. One person made thousands of felons without any input from the legislation. NY safe act took away guns. It is happening all around us...how many felons handed in their guns? None. All law abiding citizens.

Stop and frisk, while I don't think is constitutional, did get illegally owned guns off the street. So how does magazine size or other gun control measures prevent criminals from getting guns? They aren't following the laws in the first place, why make felons out of the law abiding just because the own a magazine with more than 10/15 rounds. Am I save with 10, become a murdered with 11, is it ok to kill 10, but that 11th person is over the line? None of this matters when everyone else has been disarmed and has no way to protect themselves. Did background checks prevent any crimes? V-Tech, San Bernardino, Orlando any of the shootings??

Common sense gun laws are just feel good laws that do nothing because they only affect those that obey laws. How about passing laws that punish criminals...nope, take the easy way out

 

[MadisonDan]

I spend most of my day with an asperger. My niece is one too. I guess now they are just calling it spectrum but you know what I mean.
They are the most useful people in the world if motivated. Supreme focus and brainpower if applied properly. But most often it's spent posting pictures of cats on 4chan.

word. yeah, spectrum. There are so many varying degrees. My older son. 11 1/2 yrs old. Laser focused or completely uninterested.

 

[clarkenstein]

Did background checks prevent any crimes? V-Tech, San Bernardino, Orlando any of the shootings??

i see your points except for the background checks. wouldn't orlando have been possibly been prevented if someone on the suspected terrorist list is not allowed to buy guns? why couldn't that go through?

i think the issue with the anti-gun legislation (or gun control legislation) is that nothing goes through because of... lobbyists! the gun lobby has a stranglehold on any republican candidate. brings the question of why are corporate-oriented lobbyists considered terrible, but gun lobbyists not terrible? if the gun lobby were to go away, would a suspected terrorist not be allowed to buy a gun... i dunno. and i know the orlando guy was removed from the list. and i understand the 'due process' argument of why someone shouldn't be banned from purchasing a gun. i guess my point is, i think the interpretation of the second amendment has been terribly warped - on both sides of the isle.

 

[Supermoto]

i see your points except for the background checks. wouldn't orlando have been possibly been prevented if someone on the suspected terrorist list is not allowed to buy guns? why couldn't that go through?

i think the issue with the anti-gun legislation (or gun control legislation) is that nothing goes through because of... lobbyists! the gun lobby has a stranglehold on any republican candidate. brings the question of why are corporate-oriented lobbyists considered terrible, but gun lobbyists not terrible? if the gun lobby were to go away, would a suspected terrorist not be allowed to buy a gun... i dunno. and i know the orlando guy was removed from the list. and i understand the 'due process' argument of why someone shouldn't be banned from purchasing a gun. i guess my point is, i think the interpretation of the second amendment has been terribly warped - on both sides of the isle.

You explained why it couldn't go through, due process. Secret government lists that deny rights with no due process and with no accountability is fair scarier than anything a terrorist could do. That is the end of America

The 2A is pretty straight forward, as are all of them, it is only warped when one side wants to restrict/deny people of them

 

[gtluke]

a no gun/no fly list thing would be great if we didn't all know of about a zillion people who were "accidentally" put on the no fly list. It would just get worse.

 

[Supermoto]

Not sure why its ok to restrict free travel without due process either. If you have enough evidence that someone is a danger on a plane, then they are enough of a danger that they should not be out in public. Charge them, put them in jail.

 

[ChrisRU]

Access issues aside, what is the argument against making guns safer? Kids can't open a bottle of Tylenol and no one complains about their rights being violated. Surely technologies could be implemented that can reliably limit the operation of a gun to its owner/owners.

What are the downsides? It would have to have an impact on opportunist crimes and incidental killings. Likewise, for the protect my family types you'd never have to worry about being held up by your own hand cannon. Seems like a win for both sides.

 

[Supermoto]

Access issues aside, what is the argument against making guns safer? Kids can't open a bottle of Tylenol and no one complains about their rights being violated. Surely technologies could be implemented that can reliably limit the operation of a gun to its owner/owners.

What are the downsides? It would have to have an impact on opportunist crimes and incidental killings. Likewise, for the protect my family types you'd never have to worry about being held up by your own hand cannon. Seems like a win for both sides.

Except it doesn't work reliably, nor would I want to have to wear a special bracelet or ring to make my gun work, nor would I want to keep my wife from being able to use my gun or me use her's. Kids that can't open a bottle of Tylenol can't operate a firearm, nor do I have a right to tylenol in the constitution

That being said, if you want a gun with that technology, then you should be able to buy one. But it should not be mandated by the gov

 

[clarkenstein]

Except it doesn't work reliably, nor would I want to have to wear a special bracelet or ring to make my gun work, nor would I want to keep my wife from being able to use my gun or me use her's. Kids that can't open a bottle of Tylenol can operate a firearm

that's close to the "don't bother trying" argument though. i think if it can prevent a kid from killing themselves or a parent or another kid, then its worth the risk of not being 100% reliable.

back to your other point - i think the gun-control people have a warped reading of the 2A - totally agree, but so does the gun-rights side. you gotta admit that. i'm a former NRA member, i couldn't take the BS they spew, so i quit.

 

[gtluke]

Access issues aside, what is the argument against making guns safer? Kids can't open a bottle of Tylenol and no one complains about their rights being violated. Surely technologies could be implemented that can reliably limit the operation of a gun to its owner/owners.

What are the downsides? It would have to have an impact on opportunist crimes and incidental killings. Likewise, for the protect my family types you'd never have to worry about being held up by your own hand cannon. Seems like a win for both sides.

I think most people like this idea and most would probably adopt it when it becomes feasible. Many are working on it. The opposition comes from anything mandatory that could disable a gun, or adding electronics to guns just seems silly. A lot of weapons have passive restrains like they can't be fired unless you are gripping it with man hands, so kids would never be able to fire it. Cops could use the electronic thing though as they are in the routine. They could change the battery every 30 days and have the transmitter as part of their uniform.

A person like me on the other hand, when the window breaks in the middle of the night and I jump up out of bed I don't want to have to think about batteries in my gun which hasn't left it's hiding place in 4 years.

 

[Supermoto]

that's close to the "don't bother trying" argument though. i think if it can prevent a kid from killing themselves or a parent or another kid, then its worth the risk of not being 100% reliable.

back to your other point - i think the gun-control people have a warped reading of the 2A - totally agree, but so does the gun-rights side. you gotta admit that. i'm a former NRA member, i couldn't take the BS they spew, so i quit.

I disagree with the reliability part. Gun education can solve the kid issue. As can secure access. All step gun owners should take, along with training. But I want my guns to be 100% reliable and that should not be compromised because someone does not want to take personal responsibility for their guns, education and access.

I'm on the other end of the NRA argument, I don't like them because they have and will sell gun owners out. I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty straight forward. No one seems to have issue with "Congress shall make no law"

Now people are going to say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" But that is different in 2 ways. One, you can yell Fire when there is a fire, 2 by yelling fire, you have act upon, influenced and caused a reaction and harm to people. Keeping and bearing a firearm does not influence, act upon or cause harm to others.

 

[mustclime]

This tread is all over the place, lets just get to the point. The Clinton's were the parents of Hitler. Hillary popped him out and Hitler was sent back into time to start world war 2 . Thats it, Hillery is the mother of Hitler. It has also been found that the Clinton's Kick puppies and small children as foreplay to gay sex. They also suck the stem cells of aborted children to keep the young while preforming devil worship sessions. The Clinton's also have a weather control machine so if you need rain, its their fault....If you need sun and its raining....its also their fault. It has also been found ( by Fox News) that the Clinton's cause all aches and pains so if you knees hurt, Blame Hillary!😱

have you seen this episode of JO on HBO?

 

[Monkey Soup]

Access issues aside, what is the argument against making guns safer? Kids can't open a bottle of Tylenol and no one complains about their rights being violated. Surely technologies could be implemented that can reliably limit the operation of a gun to its owner/owners.

What are the downsides? It would have to have an impact on opportunist crimes and incidental killings. Likewise, for the protect my family types you'd never have to worry about being held up by your own hand cannon. Seems like a win for both sides.

Its called keeping your guns inaccessible to kids. Kind of like keeping your car keys or alcohol away form your kids. And its not like street criminals are carrying nice guns stolen from stores or irresponsible owners, they're crap imported guns that come in illegally the same way drugs do. And all of these high-profile mass killings are regrettable, but is some kook is determined to commit premeditated murder, they're going to get a weapon one way or another.

 

[ChrisRU]

Its called keeping your guns inaccessible to kids. Kind of like keeping your car keys or alcohol away form your kids. And its not like street criminals are carrying nice guns stolen from stores or irresponsible owners, they're crap imported guns that come in illegally the same way drugs do. And all of these high-profile mass killings are regrettable, but is some kook is determined to commit premeditated murder, they're going to get a weapon one way or another.

I get this and don't disagree with anything said here. However I'm doubtful that the number of firearms in gun safes or similarly secured represents a significant percentage of the legally owned guns out there. Its unfortunate that so many of these tragedies start with "the gun came from (insert relative or other well-intending citizen here)". I don't pretend to have the solutions.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Should we have taken the oil?

 

[Supermoto]

I get this and don't disagree with anything said here. However I'm doubtful that the number of firearms in gun safes or similarly secured represents a significant percentage of the legally owned guns out there. Its unfortunate that so many of these tragedies start with "the gun came from (insert relative or other well-intending citizen here)". I don't pretend to have the solutions.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Should we have taken the oil?

99% of the people I know are gun owners, many carry on a daily basis, all of them have gun safes, . The answer is education and responsibility

 

[thegock]

Gun thread...no win.

There was only one family that I knew in grammar school who owned guns. In the fifth grade their only son shot himself to death with one of those guns.


But on to cheerier things: how can we support a candidate, who used a "heel spur" diagnosis to dodge the draft during Vietnam then attacks a gold star family based on their religious beliefs?

tRump doesn't believe in global warming. This is an issue that was settled decades ago. As someone said above: "because, science". The issue under scientific consideration now is what part of climate change is caused by the activities of man. Or that's what my brother, who has a Masters in meteorology and works for NOAA/NWS tells me.

Read the just issued, first ever, USA Today editorial on any Presidential election for an executive summary of tRump's flaws.

 

[Supermoto]

But on to cheerier things: how can we support a candidate, who used a "heel spur" diagnosis to dodge the draft during Vietnam then attacks a gold star family based on their religious beliefs?

How can we support a candidate that lied to parents of those who were killed in Benghazi? You can't vote for either with a clean conscious. So hold your nose and pull the lever. Or stay home, drink some beer and realize that you're F'ed no matter who gets in.

 

[Zaskar]

As seen on TV. CHA, CHA, CHA-Chia!